Universal Design Instruction in Undergraduate Industrial Design Programs

By:

  • Lorraine Justice; College of Architecture, GeorgiaInstitute of Technology

Project and Training Evaluation Working Group

  • Carl Blunt; Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI)
  • Rob Roy; Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA)
  • Dennis Folds; Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI)

August07, 2006

Filename: UDID Report.doc

v1.1

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......

INTRODUCTION......

METHOD......

Participants......

Procedure......

RESULTS......

Program Size......

Satisfaction with UD Instruction......

Exposure to UD Content......

UD Exposure to Non-ID Students......

Barriers to UD Instruction......

Desired UD Instruction Materials......

Comments from respondents......

DISCUSSION......

Recommendations......

APPENDIX A: Survey Instrument......

APPENDIX B: Question-by-Question Results......

APPENDIX C: Acronyms and Definitions......

List of Tables

Table 1:Student enrollment by program focus*

Table 2: Mean and median faculty size by program focus

Table 3:Satisfaction with UD instruction

Table 4:Mean and median satisfaction ratings by program focus

Table 5:Average (SD) amount of UD content offered, by course type and year of instruction*

Table 6:Proportion of programs with barriers to UD instruction, by focus

Table 7:Mean (SD) rating of teaching aids and instructional topics, by focus

Table B- 1:Role of respondent

Table B- 2:Number of students in program by student type

Table B- 3:Mean and median number of faculty

Table B- 4:Satisfaction with UD instruction

Table B- 5:Average (SD) amount of UD content offered, by course type and year of instruction

Table B- 6:Students with non-ID majors taking ID courses

Table B- 7:Proportion of programs with barriers to UD instruction

Table B- 8:Mean likelihood of use ratings for teaching aids

Table B- 9:Mean likelihood of use ratings for instructional topics

Table B- 10:Satisfaction with UD instruction

Table B- 11:Aspects of UD instruction needing improvement

Table B- 12:General survey comments

List of Figures

Figure 1:Distribution of UD content by class type and program focus

Figure 2:Year in which UD content is typically presented

Figure 3Non-ID majors most likely to take ID courses

Figure 4:Teaching aids: Proportion rating as likely or very likely to be of use

Figure 5:Instructional topics: Proportion rating as likely or very likely to be of use

Figure 6:Page one of the Universal Design Survey

Figure 7:Page two of the Universal Design Survey

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representatives of 26 industrial design programs took part in a national survey to determine the status of universal design instruction in industrial design education. Questions addressed the amount of universal design content available to students, the period in which it was taught, and the format of that teaching. The survey also addressed barriers to providing instruction, satisfaction with instruction, and perceived value of potential teaching aids and instructional topics.

Programs were characterized by the number of majors, minors, and faculty, and whether the program tended to focus more on aesthetic or functional aspects of design. Most programs (68%) were rated more functional than aesthetic, and most (72%) enroll fewer than 120 undergraduate majors.

All but one program offers course content related to universal design. On average, the total content offered in the curriculum amounts to 75% of one course. Programs rated as more aesthetic offer only 27% of one course; in contrast, programs rated as more functional offer 90% of one course. Most instruction on universal design topics occurs in studio classes, and most occurs during the third year of study. About half of respondents were satisfied with the current level of instruction.

Just one program offers courses with UD content required by non-ID majors, though 68% of programs offer ID courses as minors or electives for other majors. Outside majors most likely to take ID courses include architecture, mechanical engineering, and interior design.

Barriers to providing instruction on universal design were reported by all but one program. The most commonly reported were a lack of materials, an overloaded curriculum, and a lack of instructors with UD expertise. Programs with a functional emphasis were more likely to be judged as having a lack of materials (63% vs. 43%), whereas programs with an aesthetic emphasis were more likely to be reported as having a lack of instructors with UD expertise (71% vs. 31%).

The teaching aids rated most likely to be of use included videotaped interviews of people with disabilities, resources such as websites, articles and books, and project ideas for studios. The instructional topics most likely to be of use were those dealing with general information on disabilities and disability issues.

Participant comments underscored the presence of barriers to UD instruction. When asked what aspects of their program they would like to see improved, 32% mentioned difficulties in incorporating UD into the curriculum, 24% expressed a need for course materials, and 24% stated a lack of faculty expertise.

INTRODUCTION

Universal design (UD) is an approach to creating products or environments accessible to everyone, regardless of a person’s level of ability (or disability). The goal is to accommodate the needs of all users through design, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for product modifications or assistive technology. A design that is universally accessible is often impossible to achieve in reality, though in following UD principles, a designer can accommodate many users who might otherwise be turned away. Intrinsic to the concept of universal design is the belief that products designed to accommodate the widest range of users tend to increase the usability for all users

Ensuring that designers learn these principles is one way in which ITTATC can help to advance the development and availability of accessible E&IT. Although there are many types of designers in which ITTATC may have an interest, the current study examines the role of UD in industrial design (ID) education. Industrial designers are responsible for making products attractive to consumers by balancing and maximizing the aesthetics and functionality or usability of a product. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the extent to which UD is being taught to undergraduate students in industrial design programs, and to determinethe barriers to teaching UD, the resources needed, and the current level of satisfaction with UD instruction identified by programs in the US. This report presents the results of the survey of undergraduate industrial design programs on UD instruction and recommends measures ITTATC can take to help support instruction in these departments.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 26 representatives of industrial design programs across the US. Their role within the program varied; 60% identified themselves as a director, chair, or department head, 28% identified themselves as a program coordinator, and 24% identified themselves as a faculty member or instructor. Data for one participant was not included in the analysis because the school was identified as having no undergraduate program.

Procedure

Survey development focused on two major goals: identifying the current extent of UD instruction within undergraduate ID programs in the United States, and identifying any existing needs or barriers related to UD education.

Development of the survey began with the preparation of a draft instrument. The instrument was designed to collect five general categories of information. The first section asked for general program characteristics, included information on the number and types of students and faculty affiliated with the program, the overall program focus (aesthetic vs. functional) and the role of the survey respondent (e.g. department head). The second section asked for information on the extent to which UD content is included in coursework: how much is offered, in which courses, and in what year of the program. The third section asked for information on the extent to which students with non-ID majors might be exposed to UD content in ID courses. The fourth section queried program and training needs, including current barriers to providing UD instruction, current level of satisfaction with UD instruction, and rated likelihood of use for several possible teaching aids or instructional materials. The final section asked for any additional comments. Thus, the survey was designed to identify the amount of UD instruction currently offered to majors and non majors, the degree to which programs are satisfied with that instruction, and what possible solutions to barriers or teaching needs might programs be interested in using to improve instruction.

The draft instrument was pretested with three faculty members of the Georgia Tech ID program for comments on both content and clarity. The final, revised version of the survey is shown in Appendix A. It was distributed as a modifiable word processor document that allowed respondents to record responses but did not allow them to modify content.

The instrument was administered between October 2003 and January 2004. Representatives of thirty-five industrial design programs across the country were contacted and asked to complete the survey. Surveys were sent via email to program heads of all accredited programs in the United States, who were asked to either complete the survey themselves, or to forward it to the most relevant person in the department. Programs that did not respond to the initial data collection attempt were contacted by email or phone and asked again to complete the survey. Twenty-six surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 74%.

RESULTS

The analysis of results below begins by summarizing the general characteristics of the programs surveyed, including the program focus, size, and current level of satisfaction with instruction. It then defines the current amount of universal design (UD) content available to students, the period in which it was taught, the format of courses, and the recipients of this teaching. Next, program needs are addressed through an analysis of barriers to teaching UD, and the perceived usefulness of several possible teaching aids and instructional topics. Finally, additional comments from respondents are discussed. A question by question summary of responses is provided in Appendix B.

Program Focus

Two major aspects of design include aesthetics (the artistry or beauty of the design) and functionality (the usability and efficiency of the design). Respondents rated on a 4-point scale whether instruction in their program focused more on aesthetic or functional aspects of design. The majority of respondents (68%) rated their programs as more functional than aesthetic, with 56% rating their program as “slightly more functional” and 12% rating their program as “much more functional.” Of the 28% rating their programs as more aesthetic than functional, 20% rated their program as “slightly more aesthetic” and 8% rated their program as “much more aesthetic.” Thus, 76% of respondents reported only a slight functional or aesthetic leaning. One respondent did not complete this item, stating that he felt his program could not be characterized in this manner.

Program Size

Program size was measured as the number of students and faculty in a program. In estimating the number of students, respondents were asked to select the number of undergraduate majors, undergraduate minors, and graduate students from one of seven categories. Results are presented as the proportion of programs within each category (see Table 1). Roughly two-thirds of respondents (64%) indicated they enrolledeither 41-80 or 81-120 undergraduate majors: only 8% enrolled 40 or fewer students, and only 28% enrolled more than 120. Programs identified as more aesthetic tended to enroll more students than those identified as more functional, with medians of 81-120 and 41-80, respectively.

The number of undergraduate minors across programs was low. Only 32% of programs surveyed enrolled undergraduate minors. Of these seven, six reported a very low level of minor enrollment (1-40) while one reported a very high level (>200). Only 18% of programs with a functional focus enrolled minor students compared with 57% of programs with an aesthetic focus.

Roughly half (52%) of the programs surveyed enrolled graduate students. Of these programs, the number enrolled tended to be low, with all but one reporting 40 or fewer students. The proportion enrolling graduate students was higher for programs with an aesthetic focus (71%) than those with a functional focus (41%).

Table 1:Student enrollment by program focus*

None / 1-40 / 41-80 / 81-120 / 121-160 / 161-200 / >200 / N/R
All programs (n=25)
Majors / - / 8 / 36 / 28 / 4 / 12 / 12 / -
Minors / 32 / 28 / - / - / - / - / 4 / 36
Graduates / 24 / 48 / - / 4 / - / - / - / 24
Aesthetic (n=7)
Majors / - / 14 / - / 43 / 14 / 14 / 14 / -
Minors / 43 / 43 / - / - / - / - / 14 / -
Graduates / 29 / 57 / - / 14 / - / - / - / -
Functional (n=17)
Majors / - / 6 / 53 / 24 / - / 12 / 6 / -
Minors / 30 / 18 / - / - / - / - / - / 53
Graduates / 24 / 41 / - / - / - / - / - / 35

*Numbers indicate the proportion of programs in each category

Respondents were also asked to provide the number of full and part-time faculty members they had in their industrial design programs. Table 2 summarizes the results for these items. The median number of full-time faculty members was 4.0, and was consistent across levels of program focus. The median number of part-time faculty was also 4.0, though aesthetic programs tended to have a greater number of part-time faculty members than functional programs, with a median number of 9.5 compared with 4.0. Two aesthetic programs employed a comparatively high 35 and 52 part-time faculty members.

Table 2: Mean and median faculty size by program focus

Mean (SD) / Median (Min, Max)
All programs (n=25)
Full-time / 4.0 (2.2) / 4.0 (1, 9)
Part-time / 7.7 (12.1) / 4.0 (0, 52)
Aesthetic (n=7)
Full-time / 4.0 (1.6) / 4.0 (2, 7)
Part-time / 18 (21.1) / 9.5 (1, 52)
Functional (n=17)
Full-time / 3.9 (2.3) / 4.0 (1, 9)
Part-time / 4.1 (2.6) / 4.0 (0, 9)

Satisfaction with UD Instruction

Satisfaction was measured on a four-point scale where 1 = “very dissatisfied,” 2 = “dissatisfied,” 3 = “satisfied,” and 4 = “very satisfied.” Summary results are shown in Table 3, with mean and median satisfaction ratings in Table 4. Overall, the mean rating was 2.6, and the median was 2.5, indicating that half of the respondents surveyed were generally satisfied with the UD instruction provided by their respective programs, while half were not. The level of satisfaction was similar between aesthetic and functional programs.

Table 3:Satisfaction with UD instruction

Focus / %
(n=24)
Very dissatisfied / 4
Dissatisfied / 46
Satisfied / 35
Very satisfied / 15

Table 4:Mean and median satisfaction ratings by program focus

Mean (SD) / Median (Min, Max)
Overall (n=24) / 2.6 (0.8) / 2.5 (1, 4)
Focus
Aesthetic (n=7) / 2.7 (0.8) / 3.0 (2,4)
Functional (n=17) / 2.5 (0.8) / 2.5 (1,4)

An examination of satisfaction rating by role of respondent showed no difference in the ratings of department heads/chairs/directors (M=2.6; SD=0.8) and those of respondents in other role categories (M=2.6; SD=0.8).

Exposure to UD Content

All but one of the programs surveyed (96%) reported offering at least some course content related to UD. Respondents were asked to indicate (for up to four courses), the course title, format, percentage of course devoted to UD topics, and the year in which most students take the course. 28% listed one course, 12% listed two courses, 32% listed three courses, and 20% listed four courses. One respondent who had indicated having course content related to UD did not list any course information.

Respondents provided an estimate of the amount of UD content in each course by selecting one of four categories: less than 25%, 25-50%, 51-75%, and greater than 75%. To facilitate analysis, the data were converted from ranges to single values by taking the midpoint of the range for each category (e.g. less than 25% became 12.5%). Total course content devoted to a particular program was calculated as the sum of the midpoints for each course listed. The resulting totals are therefore only rough approximations of the actual proportion of content offered by any single program. The variable represents the total UD content offered by a program as a proportion of one course, though it should be emphasized that the content might be distributed across as many as four separate courses. Thus a total course content of 50% means that the UD–related instruction for that program amounts to 50% of one course, though perhaps distributed in small amounts across four courses (12.5% x 4).

On average, the amount of course content devoted to UD topics amounted to the equivalent of 73% of one course. This proportion differed noticeably by the stated focus of the program. More aesthetically oriented programs averaged just 27% of one course in total content, while more functionally oriented programs averaged 90% of one course in total content. The amount of course content also differed with respect to satisfaction. Respondents who indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with their program’s UD instruction reported offering a smaller amount of UD course content (M=65%, SD=0.7) than those who were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (M=80%, SD=0.6).

Table 5 summarizes the distribution of UD content in terms of course format and the academic year in which a student typically takes the course. UD content seems to be presented more often in studio courses than other types of courses, with an average amount of 32% of one class occurring in this format, or 43% of all UD content offered by programs. In addition, Table 5 shows that UD content is offered primarily in a student’s third year with an average amount of 36% of one class, which is 57% of all UD content offered. Course formats listed for “other” responses included seminars (2) and a lecture lab (1).

Table 5:Average (SD) amount of UD content offered, by course type and year of instruction*

Year1 / Year2 / Year3 / Year4 / Total**
Lecture / 0.5
(0.0) / 2.1
(0.1) / 10.8
(0.2) / 4.0
(0.1) / 19.6
(0.3)
Studio / 4.1
(0.2) / 3.5
(0.1) / 9.2
(0.1) / 8.2
(0.1) / 31.5
(0.4)
Lecture +
Studio / 0.3
(0.0) / 3.0
(0.1) / 11.7
(0.2) / 0.8
(0.0) / 15.8
(0.3)
Other / - / - / 3.8
(0.2) / 0.5
(0.0) / 6.0
(0.2)
Total / 4.9
(0.2) / 8.6
(0.2) / 35.5
(0.3) / 13.5
(0.2)

*Units represent total UD content as a proportion of one course

**Total may be greater than sum individual years, due to missing data

With respect to focus, programs differed not only in the amount of UD content available, but also in the distribution of that content across levels of class type and typical year taken. In programs with a functional focus, significant proportions of UD content occurred in both lecture (30%) and studio (43%) courses (see Figure 1). In programs with an aesthetic focus, UD instruction occurred only sparsely in lecture format (15%), and was providedmostly in studio courses (69%).

Figure 1:Distribution of UD content by class type and program focus

Most UD instruction in functional programs tends to occur in the third year (58%), with a smaller proportion of content in the fourth (20%). In contrast, UD instruction in aesthetic programs was more evenly distributed in terms of the year courses are taken. Looking at Figure 2, UD content is evenly distributed across the last two years, with 36% of the total content presented in each.

UD exposure also seemed to differ by program size, with smaller programs incorporating more UD content than larger programs. The eleven smaller programs (120 or fewer undergraduate majors) averaged about 91% of one course in total UD content. The twelve larger programs (over 120 undergraduate majors) averaged about 57% of one course. This finding is consistent with data discussed earlier; programs with a more functional focus tend to incorporate more UD content and are on average smaller than programs with a more aesthetic focus.